A corporation is sure a strange kind of person

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, which was designed by the founding fathers to provide a balanced third branch of government decided that a corporation was a person. Mitt Romney agrees, and has stated that a corporation is a person. I will believe this when I see a corporation walk down the street, go for a beer, and act like a person. The conversation in a local bar could go as follows:

“Hi, I’ll have a Sam Adams. And my friend here, Exxon Mobil, just wants a shot of oil.”

Until then, a corporation is a corporation. Not a living being.

We are now suffering from the results of this decision of the most active Supreme Court in the history of our country.

How do you like all the commercials that flooded the TV stations during the recent South Carolina primary? Not so much, from what I have heard. Well, get used to it — it will only get much, much worse in the next 10 months. Every candidate and the Super Pacs supporting them will pay for these negative ads against everyone who is running for any office. And you will never know who paid for the commercial, or whether anything in it is even remotely true.

Both outright lies and things taken completely out of context are used freely. The negativity is appalling. Important issues are either ignored or twisted. The money flows — and no one is accountable. Everything is shrouded in secrecy.

The first Amendment of the Constitution protects free speech. Of people. Nowhere can I find it protecting the free speech of corporations, or Super Pacs. But this was never about free speech, in my opinion. It was all about money, and who is allowed to spend lots of money in elections without having to report it. Influence peddling and worse are the possible outcomes of this decision. Years of trying to make elections more transparent are all in the past. The majority opinion of the court makes no sense. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of electoral institutions and the outcome will do damage to this institution, and is a rejection of the common sense of the American people.

Who benefits by this decision? Special interests, lobbyists, and those with so much money they don’t want to live within the limits of sensible campaign contributions that are public knowledge. The possible conflicts of interest are frightening, and are all too apparent as this neverending Republican primary continues.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is introducing a bill for a Constitutional Amendment in the Senate to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Saving American Democracy Act states that corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people, that corporations are subject to regulation by the people, that corporations may not make campaign contributions, and that Congress and the states have the right to regulate corporations.

Senators Tom Udall (D–N.M.) and Michael Bennett (D–Colo.) have introduced a similar constitutional amendment to grant Congress and the states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system.

The chance of an amendment is probably slim, given the high bar it takes to pass an amendment. Two-thirds of the states would have to ratify it. Money would flow into fighting it. But at least some good minds are working on a way to give American elections back to the voters.